Pro / Anti Where do we agree?


December 30, 2003, 06:20 AM
Just a shot in the dark; but knowing we all live in the same Country go to the same Schools, Shop at the same malls, and live next to one another, Can we find anything to agree on? 2nd Amendment / Gun related. I hate to see otherwise good people at each others throats when there may be something we can shake hands on.

Any takers?

If you enjoyed reading about "Pro / Anti Where do we agree?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
Harry Tuttle
December 30, 2003, 07:28 AM
Criminals using guns to hurt people is bad

My one of my "issues" with the anti mind set,
is that many see lawful gun owners as potential criminals.

tn 1911
December 30, 2003, 10:03 AM
First, I’m pro gun period. I have a spotless record and will do all I can to keep it that way. I’ve had my own firearms since the age of twelve, my father said no BB guns, they are toys that get kids into trouble. At twelve with training I could own a .22 rifle.

I don’t think the pro/anti’s will ever find neutral ground, if that were possible, they would have done so with the AWB, or scary looking rifle ban. We have more than enough laws restricting firearm ownership and laws protecting the citizens who choose not to own firearms.

The anti gun groups will never be happy with restrictions they’ve placed on us already. If they would be, they’d say so and then go away. What they want is, not one firearm in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Since this is known by anyone even slightly interested in gun rights, gun owners can never find a middle ground with these people. They have proven time and time again they aren’t interested in compromise, current laws or gun owners rights. It will be a total ban or nothing; I’ve slowly changed my opinions over the years. My opinion now, fight anything they propose, tooth and nail.


December 30, 2003, 10:53 AM
What I've observed is that the line between the pro-gun and anti-gun camps is wide and well-defined. In that way, it is similar to religion, politics and abortion. Well-educated people (often within the same family) may look at such issues and come away with widely divergent views.

In such cases, with passions flaring, it usually takes some fundamental paradigm shift in thinking to reach consensus. For example, I've got one family member who has long been against firearms for anything other than hunting (and then, only grudgingly). However, this past Thanksgiving, we spent quite a while discussing the defensive use of handguns and shotguns. Why? Due to unforseen circumstances, she finds herself living alone and fairly isolated. She has read the local papers and it finally dawned on her that bad stuff does happen in her neck of the woods. Next time she visits, we're heading to the range for a few hours of instruction and familiarization. Go figure!

It will be interesting to see how things work out over time. On the one hand, we've got the AWB and some ridiculous stuff happening in certain cities and states. On the other hand, we now have the vast majority of the states permitting CCW, and the movement seems to be towards wider acceptance and more inclusive issuance.

As a gun-owner, I think my best effect is to work on a personal level with those around me. I've spoken with several friends who are hunters, but for the AWB... because "it just doesn't seem that regular people need those". I then take great pains to explain that I shoot highpower matches and give them a little history on the DCM/CMP and talk about the nature of what (cosmetic "evil" doohickeys) were actually banned.

December 30, 2003, 07:48 PM
Have you ever been given a position from an Anti that you found difficult to dispute, or a position from a Pro that was difficult to dispute?

Bob Locke
December 30, 2003, 08:46 PM
What Harry said: Using a firearm to initiate force against someone else is always going to be viewed as wrong from both sides of the fence.

I also think that most people on both sides want to see convicted felons denied the right to own a firearm. Oddly enough, even though I am stating this I don't think that should be so, but that's an argument for a different time/thread. The vast majority of pro-gunners would agree with that position.

Outside of those two, I'm at a loss.

December 30, 2003, 09:20 PM
There is no way the two sides will agree except possibly to the answer to the question "is the sky blue?"

The pros are typically logical, successful and self-directed. The antis are typically emotional, dependent on others and blame others for their failure. Some antis are successful, but want totalitarian control for themselves. This includes politicians and many actors who play make believe for a living.

The antis have a dismal record if you look at the last century. They count Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot as their comrades.

December 30, 2003, 09:28 PM
What mountainclmbr said.

I have spent 20+ years deconstructing and analysing the anti midnset and sadly I find the stereotypes to be too true. I find their mindset to be more cultlike than anything else, the veritable snake handlers of politics.

December 30, 2003, 09:55 PM
True enough, but I contend that the Antis fear of the Pros has more to do with a fear of a group of people who are not like them than emotion. I agree that a person who operates on emotion and openly accepts illogic and untruth while dismissing truth and logic is hard to associate with, but I feel that if we as people get together and look at the things that make us the same we won't seem so different. And therefore not generate the fear that divides otherwise good people.

Just because a person is controlled by emotion does not make them devoid of logic, just as a person who is guided by logic is not devoid of emotion.

There are things we can agree on. And the possibility exists that we may be able to find common ground we can use to guide the gun debate in a logical direction. But before we can do that, the Antis and the Pros need to stop fearing each other and realize the things that divide us are not guns, but the Criminals, Politicians, and Lobby interests who all profit from our fear and mistrust in each other.

I may be expecting too much from the Antis or Pros, but I'm willing to see if we the people can settle things without the need for Government to step in.

Any Antis want to chime in here?

December 30, 2003, 10:27 PM
"Just because a person is controlled by emotion does not make them devoid of logic, just as a person who is guided by logic is not devoid of emotion."

Highlighted by your own thoughts, this is the reason that there is no common ground.

Guided by logic makes sense: one cannot, as a CCW or, for that matter, a gun owner, simply respond to emotion, for reasons obvious to anyone in the class. Thus, emotions are present, as they alway are in we humans, but they're restrained...

Controlled by emotions means exactly that, and if you cannot think, but merely feel, I fail to see the point of any discussions at all.

That said, look at the bright side: at least they won't control weapons, including the most important, their own minds.

Standing Wolf
December 30, 2003, 11:47 PM
I also think that most people on both sides want to see convicted felons denied the right to own a firearm.

I felt that way six months or a year ago; at this point, however, I'm inclined to believe convicted felons who petition the courts for restoration of their rights and can clearly demonstrate they've radically altered their lives and attitudes ought to be given a second chance. I'd make them wait ten years, and the burden of proof would be wholly on them, but that's the direction my thinking is moving in.

December 30, 2003, 11:56 PM
I also think that most people on both sides want to see convicted felons denied the right to own a firearm.
Once upon a time a felony was a very bad thing ... it was a serious crime, usually violent (but not always). Today ... I wish I could get a list of all felonies out there. I think you'd be surprised how much the term "felony" has been watered down. Simply incorrectly filling out a government form can be a felony, putting one too many imported parts on an "Assault Rifle" can be a felony, I'm sure there's more simple little felonies out there.

So, no, I no longer want to see convicted felons denied the right to own a firearm (although I'm willing to acquiesce to the idea that violent felons should have their rights restricted).

I don't believe there can be anything that pro gun & anti gun people can call common ground. Each position is defined by the complete defeat of the other.

December 31, 2003, 01:08 AM
So, no, I no longer want to see convicted felons denied the right to own a firearm (although I'm willing to acquiesce to the idea that violent felons should have their rights restricted).

I don't think a violent criminal who cannot be trusted to own a firearm should ever be let out of jail. Everyone else should have the right to defend their lives and their loved ones as they see fit.

December 31, 2003, 01:18 AM
We want our communities safer.

We want the police to be armed.

We want fewer accidents involving firearms.

We want fewer suicides (whether they use firearms or not.)

We want the military to be able to protect us.

We don't want children to get hurt or killed with firearms.

We want less crime and fewer violent crimes.

We don't want people who hurt other people to go unpunished.

We don't want kids to shoot other kids at school.

We want people to be safer on airplanes.

I'm sure there are lots more. The problem is of course that our worldviews are different enough that it is difficult for either side to acknowledge that the other side might have some of the same basic goals but simply disagree how to reach those goals.

For instance: We all want less crime, but will there be less crime if there are more guns? Of course, almost everyone on this board would say 'yes' to that question, but it's very counter-intuitive to think so.

Instead of admitting that it's an unlikely thing to think, we sneer at people who don't instantly agree with this very counter-intuitive proposition and call them "emotional" and "illogical" and bunches of other names.

On the other side of the issue, the antis take one look at the position we're holding, and instantly decide that we love our guns more than we care about lowering the crime rate or keeping our communities safe or anything like that.

So both sides have one more thing in common: We both think the other side is evil, stupid, or both.


December 31, 2003, 06:52 AM
As an addendum to what pax said, I thing thet the one common ground for pros and antis is that "we both want to keep ourselves and our families safe". Not from guns necessarily, but just "safe" in general. There is no one who would disagree with that.

Of course, the antis belive that gun control will lead to more safety, and the pros believe that unrestricted gun access for citizens would lead to more safety. It's just a matter of how you get there. :)

My argument is that if you gave unrestricted access to guns for all citizens, while accidental and home "family" shootings would probably rise a little, overall violent crime would go way, way down, thus decreasing the overall rate of violent crime and overall increase safety.

December 31, 2003, 07:51 AM
Having did a radio show on constitutional rights with a strong 2nd amendment push in the liberal democrat area of Palm Beach, I can clearly state that no anti-gun position could not be logically and factually disputed and taken apart.
Most callers ended up yelling and hanging up when you started to unravel their thinking.
Those that decided to stay in the discussion started to comprehend our side but due to years of brainwashing and following party lines would probably not act on a change of heart.

I recall one N.Y. transplant that called in because she did not feel safe with someone owning a gun living next door to her. She did not care if anyone's rights were violated or abused as long as she felt safe.

This seems to be the insecure feeling of anti gun individuals. I pity the home life they must have had to grow up with such a feeling of insecurity and being scared all the time. We see so many snow birds and transplants who walk around with a look of fright on their faces and I would bet that if you went up to them and yelled boo real loud they would mess themselves.

The only agreement is, agree to disagree.

December 31, 2003, 09:02 AM
Thought-provoking, as usual Pax:
* We want our communities safer. I agree.

* We want the police to be armed. I agree.

* We want fewer accidents involving firearms. I agree.

* We want fewer suicides (whether they use firearms or not.) Suicide is not, in every case, a bad thing. But it's a very personal decision that is usually made under great duress. I would hope for a greater avoidance of circumstances that lead to suicide.

* We want the military to be able to protect us. I agree.

* We don't want children to get hurt or killed with firearms. Or anything else.

* We want less crime and fewer violent crimes. I agree.

* We don't want people who hurt other people to go unpunished. I agree.

* We don't want kids to shoot other kids at school. I agree.

* We want people to be safer on airplanes. Or, alternatively, safe from terrorists in every mode of travel.

I would add that we all want our loved ones and friends to walk through life without fear.

TFL Survivor

Partisan Ranger
December 31, 2003, 09:22 AM
I think we can generally agree that evil exists in the world.

The difference is this: Anti-gun bigots think the evil is in guns (funny, I have a safe full of em and they've never done a darned thing to me!).

I think evil exists in the hearts of men (and women).

And it grows out of control in some of them.

December 31, 2003, 10:04 AM
In the "Us vs. Them" battle, there's a big underlying problem:


We have experience with firearms, they don't. The lack of knowledge and experience perpetuates fear.

I was never pro gun as a late teenager or when I was in my early 20's. I never had any experience with guns. I believed the crap that the television sold to me. I thought a bullet could just go BANG! all by itself. I believed that smart, educated people killed themselves by accident while cleaning their guns because they "thought they were unloaded". I believed that gun owners were nuts who would gun me down if I parked too close to their driveway.

Then I fired a handgun. I learned all about it. And guess what? It didn't ever magically shoot by itself. I bought a gun, and had no urge to run out and shoot people. It was always "loaded" (Part of the four rules, right?)
Even when I just verified that it was unloaded, the minute it was out of my sight for even a second, or the instant I handed it to somebody, it became loaded again. Its SOOOO easy.....

Fear of the unknown is our biggest enemy.

So. My common ground with anti's?

I accept background checks. And I can even tolerate Maryland's mandatory seven day waiting period on the purchase of a handgun. Yes, its inconvenient and it may be ineffective in stopping crime, but I can handle it as an insignificant measure. Heck, it usually works to my advantage; I'll see a handgun that I REALLY want, but don't have all the money yet. So I put a deposit on it and wait for the background check to clear and the mandatory 7 days to pass, which buys me another week to get the money together.

Now all 16,000 of the OTHER stupid laws on the books......:banghead:

December 31, 2003, 10:17 AM
You've gotta love the "I don't mind a little raping of my freedom, just don't do it too hard." type comments. It's demoralizing when even posters on a gun board are statist.:barf:

December 31, 2003, 10:36 AM
The problem is, in a state which is rabbidly liberal, you learn to make small sacrifices.

It has nothing to do with freedom in this day and age.

You take a test to get a driver's license. Been acceptable for decades. Your car is registered and tagged.

Your employer does a background check on you before hiring you. Acceptable.

Want to go fishing even? Get a license from the Dept. of Natural Resources (or whatever your state authority is).

Mortgage? Forget about it without a complete, invasive background check.

Credit card?

People want to know who they're giving things to.

Your reading too much into what I said. Background checks aren't a big deal....maybe your confusing that with registration, which is (or at least shoud be) a totally different issue. Nobody needs to know what guns, if ANY I have.

Your stance sounds about irrational as the anti's rationalization.

Anti's: "All guns are bad. Nobody should have them. Ban them all! Ban them all!"

Your post: "Everybody should have everything! Criminals, rapists....everybody have machine guns and tanks!" that's a little flavorful.....:p

While I don't disagree with the basic theory that we should be free from all oppression and government interference, I accept the fact that there are many different opinions and that I will have to make a compromise. It's the world we live in, and I accept that in small a background check.

December 31, 2003, 12:29 PM
We both agree that guns are the problem.

The antis see it as the cause of crime.

The pros see it as an answer to crime.

So I guess we will have to agree to disagree!

The wife tried the "lets work together becuase we basically want the same thing" route with one of the main MMMers after a gun control debate. They chatted, got along great during their face to face conversation and even swapped emails so that we could open up communications between "us" and "them" (my wife WAS them until she saw the errors of her ways).

Guess what? After the first few articles and comentary the MMMer refussed to continue communications. I guess the truth was hurting her brains too much.

What is that saying, "Don't confuse me with the facts I've already made up my mind!"

They will stay on their side of the fence and we will stay on ours. It is the fence sitters that are important to talk to. Take them shooting. That usually swings them into our camp when they see for themselves that the gun does not jump up by itself and start a rampage.

December 31, 2003, 12:29 PM
Anti's: "All guns are bad. Nobody should have them. Ban them all! Ban them all!"

Your post: "Everybody should have everything! Criminals, rapists....everybody have machine guns and tanks!" that's a little flavorful.....

While I don't disagree with the basic theory that we should be free from all oppression and government interference, I accept the fact that there are many different opinions and that I will have to make a compromise. It's the world we live in, and I accept that in small a background check.

You know the real problem with that? It's that the folks on our side aren't radical enough to make an acceptable compromise.

The anti-gun folks want to ban all guns.

If we start from a position of "all guns should be legal" and then compromise from there, pretty soon half of all guns will be illegal (such as they are in Cali and MD). And from that point, the gunnies are saying, well, okay then, we want all currently-legal guns to remain legal, and the antis are saying, no no, ban all guns. If we compromise from there, we're left with only one quarter of what was legal originally. And then the gunnies say, okay, well, we still want all currently-legal guns to remain legal, and the antis say, no no ban all guns, and we compromise, and pretty soon there are no guns left at all and they're happy and we can't figure out how it happened.

On the other hand, the logical opposite to "ban all guns" would be "require everyone to own a gun." If we compromised from that very radical position, y'know what? The midpoint between those two positions is "allow all guns" -- and we'd have the 2nd Amendment.


December 31, 2003, 12:39 PM
I tend to agree with liberals (more or less equal Antis) more on gay rights than I do with my gun friends. It's probably also the reason why I'm not a Republican.

December 31, 2003, 01:01 PM
Pax, I don't disagree with you. I did say my analogy was a little flavorful .

I don't think any gun should be banned, but my entire point was that I don't disagree with a background check.

Banning a gun would be like banning a 3/4" drive socket wrench. It's big, scary, and does the job that most smaller wrenches can't.

But it's just a tool.

I suppose there has to be the radicals on both sides to keep the balance. Apparantly I'm just not radical enough to degrade somebody with sarcasm because their views aren't consistent with mine.

Do you think background checks are acceptable? I mean in principle, since the laws vary from state to state, and some might actually be effective in SOME places, whereas they're completely irrelevant in others.

Oh and the second point, which was actually the main point in my previous post....inexperience and fear are what I see as the biggest long term enemy of gun rights. People like Feinstein and Schumer will come and go; it's the impact they have on people that creates a problem. These "leaders" prey on peoples' fear, which again, is largely based on the lack of real experience with firearms. So as Ray Woodward said, in order for us to eradicate peoples' fears, we need to take them shooting, ask them legiimate questions, listen to their answers, and not resort to heated debates and antagonizing statements. We'll win the "fence sitters" that way, not by FORCING our agenda on them as the Left does....

Does anybody know of a gun enthusiast turned anti by the brutal persuasive powers of the left?

Ol' Badger
December 31, 2003, 01:19 PM
Where do we agree???

Well its been my experince that we agree that Tom was just stupid for leaving Nicole! Yup. Thats about all we agree on.

December 31, 2003, 01:25 PM
I don't think a violent criminal who cannot be trusted to own a firearm should ever be let out of jail. Everyone else should have the right to defend their lives and their loved ones as they see fit.

I absolutely agree! I still don't see how the second ammendment should be exempted by what someone has done in their past. A convicted felon that is in prison should have fewer rights that all of the rest of us that are not in prison. But once a person has done his (or her) time and paid their 'debt to society' and are released, then I think they should have the same rights as the rest of us.

Now, if they took a gun into a school or a business and did something very bad with it, then they should not be allowed to walk the streets ever again. I'm all for rehibilitation for some crimes and some criminals but I don't think anyone that 'snaps' and shoots multiple anonymous people can be successfully rehibilitated.

Of course, with my outlook, a lot of unemployeed skilled workers need to be put to work building prisons (and awall between the US and Mexico while we're at it) to have ample room for both the murders, violent rapists, guys that solicited a prostitute and the guy that was caught with two joints on two seperate occasions (extreme sarcasm on the last two counts).

Ahh... to be an all-powerful president with a very understanding senate and house for a few years... :p

December 31, 2003, 01:29 PM
I agree that both Pro and Anti sides want their families to be safe.

The Pro side usually wants the ability to defend themselves as a last line of defense. They also want violent felons locked up. They usually believe that the safety of society outweighs a crimminals rights.

The Anti side seems to have a fuzzy view of right and wrong and don't trust themselves to make that determination or take action themselves. They also seem to have an idealistic belief that hardened crimminals can be rehabilitated and should be released back into society, even after repeatedly demonstrating that they cannot be trusted. They often believe that a crimminals rights outweigh societys safety.

In my viewpoint, it is the implementation of the Anti viewpoints that makes it more important to be able to defend myself.

December 31, 2003, 06:24 PM
Some here say that a little bit of firearms restriction (background checks, disallowing felons, etc) isn't necessarily bad. But the anti's don't always operate from a position of moral certitude. At least the leaders don't. Often it's simply pure politics.

For example: a couple of years ago I got to talking with the director of the group is lobbying against the CCW bill here. In a rare moment of candor, she admitted that she didn't believe that concealed carry would result in the apocolyptic predictions she'd been making in public. Her concern was that the pro-gun forces would gain momentum if the bill were to pass. For her, I believe it's a matter of income; she does very well financially by selling fear.

January 1, 2004, 10:36 AM
I know that people can and do make mistakes, and sometimes find themselves with criminal records in the process. And I agree that a persons past should not restrict them from a natural right to self defense. But, I don't believe a REPEAT offender should retain the legal right if their actions have proved they are a continued threat to society.

Let a person who has a criminal background defend them self after they have paid their debt to society; absolutely. But I feel that right can be suspended if that same person poses a continued threat to society and shows (by their continued actions) they cannot be trusted with that right.

January 10, 2004, 09:01 AM
All the talk recently about "Sky Marshals" reminded me of this thread.

In the UK, many, maybe most anti-gunners don't like the idea of the public being under-armed compared to the police.

I've heard/seen a lot of arguments against having armed sky-marshals along the lines of "We don't want to live in a police state", or "We don't want to depend on an armed fascist", "If we have to make such a drastic change to our way of life, then the terrorists will have won"*, etc.

Similar arguments are made whenever someone suggests the police should be routinely armed.

I once saw a TV debate about routinely arming the police (before which, I was mainly opposed, tending towards neutral). But the pros made some good arguments (both "theoretical", and with statistics to back them up)about the risk from armed criminals being so high that it was necessary for their safety. The only "decent" argument that the antis could come up with was "But if we do, the public will insist they need guns as well".

* Other frequent arguments are "We don't want to entrust our safety to some gun-totting cowboy". Terms like "gun-totting" and "cowboy" (or "John Wayne", "Wild West", etc) crop up frequently.

January 14, 2004, 06:30 PM
I think something similar was posted in TFL awhile back. Should arms include nuclear devices? Fully automatic machine guns? Rocket launchers? Nerve gas?

We've already compromised a little bit. Anything totally unsafe for the general public should be strictly regulated. While I agree nukes and nerve gas should be tightly restricted, I don't see the harm in letting people own machine guns.

Fact is, it's relatively easy to get/make an illegal machine gun. Even barring that, imagine the heart attack DiFi would have if she saw people "bump-firing" their AKs, ARS, etc.

If the licensing process for machine guns were less stringent, there would be no effect on crime, and the 1% of us who really, really want an automatic weapon could get one.

January 14, 2004, 09:26 PM
Next time an anti talks about compromise, say you want xxxx rights, but are willing to settle for just xxxx more rights. It should not always be the other way around.

January 14, 2004, 09:39 PM
I’ve had my own firearms since the age of twelve, my father said no BB guns, they are toys that get kids into trouble. At twelve with training I could own a .22 rifle.

My mother said the EXACT same thing to me when I was a pup. I was not allowed to have any guns until 14 though, and the day I turned 14 I was allowed to have my own gun (a .22). We had many guns in the house, but none that were officially "mine". I firmly believe that BB guns bring out bad habits, although many disagree with that. My kid will learn to shoot at a very young age like I did, but wont be given his "own" gun until he is 14.

January 15, 2004, 05:08 PM
Did Frederick Douglass spend a lot of time and energy trying to find the "common ground" that could be shared by abolishionists with their pro-slavery neighbors?

Did Martin Luther King Jr. try hard to find common ground that Civil Rights Proponents could share with segregationists?

How hard did Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton try to find common ground to share with those who were dead set against women's suffrage?

And why didn't all those whacky radical colonists in the 1770s do more to try to find the common ground they could share with the agents of the British government? I mean after all, they spoke the same language and even had the same last names in some cases.

In my opinion, there isn't any "common ground" to be shared here.

If you are pro gun, you believe that you should be able to own guns and use them for self defense if required.

Anti-gunners want guns to be regulated out of existence, or out of existence for everyone except their elitist selves.

Every single legislative step, such as background checks, is hailed as a "good first step" down the road to gun elimination.

And no, that's not some radical fantasy. Do some searching. You'll find such shadowy, underground, unknown sources as the New York Times and US Senators saying as much.

There is a large, mushy patch of no-man's-land in between the two positions. And that no-man's-land is full of the millions of Americans who haven't thought about what they think about guns. Those folks prefer to not think, and keep up instead with Paris Hilton or soap operas, or football standings, or Dr. Phil.

Not that there is anything wrong with watching Paris Hilton or football.

But most Americans have never really, seriously thought about where they really stand on most major issues, and why they think that way. Thinking is alien territory.

It's not that they can't, they just won't, or prefer not to.

It's those folks we need to concentrate on the most.

Invite people you know to go shooting with you. There is a link on THR right now about Diana Wagman, an anti in outlook until someone invited her to a range.

She thought she was anti, but had never thought about why she held her position.

The committed antis, those who know exactly why they are anti and what their goals are, are not reachable.

But not every anti on the surface is a committed anti. And they can be reached, often with just a polite invitation to the range.


January 15, 2004, 05:27 PM
The anti's seem for the most part to be emotion driven .. and when logic (admittedly as we see it) is presented .. it is refuted thru emotion .. and the ill favored breeze of mis-quoted statistics. This is a basic divide and as someone has already said ... maybe the only common ground is a wish to live safe, full and happy lives.

Anti's too place blame on ''the gun'' .... they are effended by the implement - and seem to give little thought to the user ..... forgetting so conveniently for the most part that the overwhelming majority of law abiding folk are not villains.

They tar the gun owner with the criminal brush ... and that is one of their most offensive ploys ... seeing as it appeals so well to the many sheeple out there.

There is a divide ... and IMO little ground for meeting of minds...... just the hope we all have to bring some converts into the fold as and whenever we get the chance.

Chuck Jennings
January 16, 2004, 04:34 AM
Don’t forget that some of the most dangerous people to the RKBA cause are those with whom we have much common ground on firearms issues. The people that I refer to are the gun owners who say things like “I’m a sportsman, but not a gun nut.” Most of us have at one time or another met the people who don’t care about what is going on in gun control legislation as long as their shotgun and bolt-action rifle are safe. These gun owners are used by the hard-core antis to further the anti agenda by facilitating the incremental banning of guns.

January 16, 2004, 09:12 AM
The aim of argument is to discover a solution to paraphrase Aristotle. Why argue if each party is simply defending their own position? This type of argument is then a waste of time and effort. It is a shouting match engaged in more to vent passions and frustrations than it is to discover any solutions. Pig-headed yahoos bumping heads for no other reason than the fact that they can.

Logic is the basis of order and ordering words and numbers to achieve positive or negative outcomes. 1+1 will ALWAYS equal 2 (unless you have been victimized by public education in the past 20 years, then YMMV). Conversely -1-1 will ALWAYS equal -2. "The sky is blue." is a positive declarative statement. "No trespassing." is a negative declarative statement. Their is no misunderstanding what is meant by these statements. Yes, we can (an do at times) certainly "deconstruct" these statements and ask asinine or genuine questions such as "Just what is meant by blue?" or "No trespassing where?". As you can see, the basis of the question is found in the motives of the person asking. A color blind man might be genuinely attempting to understand blue. A left-liberal anarcho-socialist may be attempting to segue you into something totally unrelated to the issue at hand when he wryly asks "Well, just what is blue?"

In some cases the answers are axiomatic or self-evident. In the question "No trespassing where?" the limit or boundary begins in the immediate context of which it is spoken like when you tell some revenuer that there is no trespassing when he intends to step on your property.. In other places the declaration may be on a sign posted on a pole or on a fence at the edge of some property. Here it is self-evident that the sign means from this line, fence, pole or whatever position and beyond, there is NO trespassing.

Logic may lead to brain surgery and rocket science BUT, you do not need this level of education to employ logic. 1 + 1 = 2 and it works for idiots and geniuses alike. In the equation 1 + 1 = 2 there is no room for arguments or compromise. It simply is. There is nothing to argue.

Regardless of anyone's opinion on the existence or utility of rights as defined in western civilization people will take action to defend themselves when constrained to do so. Regardless of anyone's political views or thoughts on laws and civilizations or society, crimes and aggressions will continue to be perpetrated. Put these two together and you will find that people will when constrained to do so will defend themselves against crimes and aggressions. Today firearms are generally the preferred tool to use by both aggressors and defenders. When firearms were not an available technology both camps employed the preferred or the at-hand technolgy of weaponry prevalent in their times. Rocks, clubs, slings, bows, knives, swords or whatever was available to gain an advantage over the other party. In another millenium people may well use laser weapons or ray guns or whatever technology is available at the time to employ force in aggression or for defense. Then again, we may resort to rocks, slings, clubs and other devices to gain what advantage we may by their use. In any period though it is still the people who will act as criminals or defenders.

Throughout the ages many schemes have been employed to thwart aggressors and criminals in communities. Watchmen, walls around the community, armed guards, shire reeves (sheriffs), militia and today, police. Rarely have any of these schemes been successful in preventing crimes and aggression. Why? Simply because they are a very limited, costly and scarce resource. Since these schemes were devised to thwart the actions of aggressors and criminals, it is no surprise that the aggressors and criminals preferred to act when these defenders are not around. So it still remains to this day that you simply cannot depend on these agents of the state to protect you and yours againt the criminal elements. We are left to defend ourselves.

In order to defend person and property against aggressors and criminals comparable means MUST be at your disposal to effect a good defense against those who would relieve you of your life or property. Today that means firearms. They are not a complete solution. It would certainly be better to have no aggression or crimes at all. Unfortunately, that is unattainable and therefore unrealistic. It would also be great to have personal defenders for each and every person but, that too is unattainable and unrealistic. The only effective solution then is the solution that has been provided for millenia, the means to defend ones self and property. Today, that solution is encapsulated in the personal possession and use of firearms.

Fears, state of residence, the "local mood" the various facets of psychobabbling, letters following one's name, religious beliefs, years of experience, laws, regulations, media effect and opinions, astrological signs and the readings of tea leaves are ALL irrelevant. It is the persistence of life, the basic and fundamental instincts and drives that are inherent in ALL forms of life to survive, continue on and perpetuate the species that causes man to flee or fight in the face of danger that constrains us to defend both person and property. No law or government can reach that deeply into the soul or being of any human to effect the necessary changes to eliminate criminality and aggression in the species, the society, the community, the family or the individual. Only fools and children could believe such fairy tales.

In answer to the original post on this thread is that there can be NO middle ground. There exists no grey area here. There is no room for dialogue. Indeed, there is no need for dialogue for no compromise can exist. It is the nature of the beast. It is the nature of life. After all, 1 + 1 still equals 2.


If you enjoyed reading about "Pro / Anti Where do we agree?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!